Skull and bones: Human remains in stone circles

One thing that has always seemed incidental to my research into stone circles and other megalithic sites has been the discrepancy between dowsing responses and the official reports on the purpose of such sites. These official histories can be found placed outside the sites by helpful country councils eager to attract tourists to any old thing they can offer on a rainy English summer day that might seem cultural or educational.

Every one of these signs, without exception, is adamant that, because a tweed-attired chap with a trowel and monocle dug up a small pile of cremated bones from the centre of the site in 1921 that this is categorical evidence that sites from then on should be designated for “burial” purposes. Don’t get me wrong – valuable archaeological work has been done at ancient sites, and I do not dispute the accuracy of the work done, or the professionalism brought to bear on the excavation in modern times. However, I believe that in respect of human remains and funerary practises the evidential tale takes a major leap into “faction” – a curious meld of fact and fiction that then becomes a widely-publicised and accepted “truth”.

Here is a list of unscientific things that I find contradict this widely-held scientific hypothesis:-

1. Every time we dowse a site where bones have been found to see whether it primarily served the purpose of a burial site – the clear and unequivocal answer has been “No”. We have to say ‘primarily’ because of course bones have been buried there, so if we asked the questions differently we might get a misleading answer.
2. Why would you bury people in a stone circle that was clearly intended for astronomical use? This was the calendar of the ancient peoples, and the movement of posts to track the heavens would have required regular visits. Clearly, stone circles in particular served a calendrical purpose above that of being a cemetery.
3. Cromlechs and “passage graves” are always labelled “burial chambers”, yet many cromlechs have interior spaces that are too small to hold a human skeleton. Yes, many remains have been cremated, but even so the “real estate” is quite limited. Passage graves are aligned with astronomical bodies, not dead bodies, and their passages stream with light on specific important dates. Their chambers also resonate sound superbly, and the mounds above the passage are structured like Wilhelm Reich’s Orgone Accumulator – layers of different materials that retain and transform nature’s energies. A sophisticated structure for a grave, with may superfluous features, wouldn’t you say?
4. If the site was for burial, why would you bury a small number of people there? The stock answer is that it was the site of the burial of heroic people – druids, famous warriors, chieftains. So, why do you only get a select number of skeletons there, and not lots layered on top of each other, as successive generations marked great people? This would indicate that the structure served a one-off purpose of the burial of specific people, possibly for a specific purpose. The argues against the idea of the function of such sites being primarily for burial.
5. Many of the funereal urns containing the charred remains dug up from stone circles are dated to around the latter end of the Bronze Age (3200-1200BCE), yet stone circles have themselves been dated from thousands of years before that. It seems that the burials were later additions to the ceremonial aspects of these sites.

If your old religion and civilisation was being systematically destroyed by invaders, as the last in the line of the Circle Builders, where would you wish to be buried? An ancient site. Was it a final act of dedication, a magical attempt to preserve the energies of the sites through their sacrifice and burial at astronomical positions? Or were they places where communication with and inspiration from the ancestors could be obtained at specific times of the year when the veil between worlds was thinner?

So, my theory is that the ancient sites were indeed used for burying some people, but that this was not the primary purpose of such sites. I do not see any evidence at all that the design, the layout, the siting, and the structure of the ancient sites have anything at all to do with burial as an inherent and continuous part of their purpose.

As Aubrey Burl puts it:-

The most likely explanation for these bizarre collections of bones, some of them lacking skulls and far too few to represent even a minute fraction of the population, is that they were the remains of an ancestor cult in which the living ritually used skulls and longbones, believing that the ghosts of the dead would protect them just as dedicatory burial would add potency to a ceremonial monument. In the new stone age death and the dead obsessed the living. But, needing to control these powerful and dangerous spirits, the people confined the bones inside ‘magic’ rings of earth or stone.

I have a slightly different perspective on that which includes aspects of “death energy” being ritualistically interred into the sacred site in an attempt to bring stability to a community (a rallying point), fertility to the land, and perhaps to retain the presence of that person’s spirit by “fixing” their presence into the energy formation at such crossing points on the earth energy grid.

Gwas.